Yeah, we need more competent economists in Germany, such as Markus Krall, Max Otte, Dirk Müller and Thorsten Polleit.
at least politicians trust in the presented results of these guys because they usually understand basic descriptive tables. Descriptive tables are also hard evidence for any effects. Everything else is vodoo and subjectively driven by so-called "professional researchers". pah
Yeah, we need more competent economists in Germany, such as Markus Krall, Max Otte, Dirk Müller and Thorsten Polleit.at least politicians trust in the presented results of these guys because they usually understand basic descriptive tables. Descriptive tables are also hard evidence for any effects. Everything else is vodoo and subjectively driven by so-called "professional researchers". pah
not true. politicians dont listen to krall, at all. in fact, they dont listen to anybody but are rather talking to fratzscher what b/s he should sell next. I krall might not be the best economist but he is not terrible, either. moreover, he speaks his mind and is not afraid to argue against the establishment. if every top economist had courage like that, we most likely would not be where we are now.
Has anyone studied how much of the German market is actually covered by Forschungsmonitoring? I just took a look at it and saw Munich has nearly four times as many authors as professors whereas in Frankfurt there are nearly only professors. Looking abroad to where they don't speak German in a country where German is spoken elsewhere, University of Geneva is ranked 25th but with only 6 professors while they have more than 40 (maybe some should count for business but not more than 30), Graduate Institute 7 when they have more than 10 and Lausanne ended up 24th with just 2 of their professors. If the ranking at some places counts all former PhD students that have not changed their affiliation as the RePEc ranking does while at other places not even a substantial number of the professors takes part it loses its value and just misinforms those that are not able to see through, students and journalists in particular.
Please, stop thinking and posting. It leads to nowhere...
In the ranking you can opt out for the individual ranking, but still counted for the institutional ranking. Some colleagues of mine did it.
Università della Svizzera italiana is shown with 12 of their 30+ professors and still ranks 6th when only A and A+ are counted.
In the ranking you can opt out for the individual ranking, but still counted for the institutional ranking. Some colleagues of mine did it.
Ok but that still doesn't help with the fact that a ranking based on nearly all of the faculty at some places and just a small minority at others is misleading.
the other thing is that the ranking needs to be replicable. it is impossible to verify whether all registered researchers from a given department have indeed been taken account of...it's easy to make mistakes and impossible for outsiders to check whether everything was done correctly.
in short, forschungsmonitoring needs to publish the data on each registered researcher
Still it would be great to see the ranking of all researchers that did not opt out. Why cut the thing off after 75 or 100?
Presumably because no one would want to be listed at the bottom so the fear is the more are listed the more would opt out for not wanting to be shown with so many others ahead of them.
Fair enough. But the marginal guy in the under 40 ranking is DS who has 2 Top 5 (Ecma and JPolE) and 3 JPubE. And DS did not even make it into the normal ranking. This cutoff is too high.
Still it would be great to see the ranking of all researchers that did not opt out. Why cut the thing off after 75 or 100?Presumably because no one would want to be listed at the bottom so the fear is the more are listed the more would opt out for not wanting to be shown with so many others ahead of them.
the other thing is that the ranking needs to be replicable. it is impossible to verify whether all registered researchers from a given department have indeed been taken account of...it's easy to make mistakes and impossible for outsiders to check whether everything was done correctly.
in short, forschungsmonitoring needs to publish the data on each registered researcher
To be truly replicable also the SJR numbers would need to be open. How the hell do they calculate that "Foundations and Trends in Finance", "Journal of Consumer Research", "Journal of Marketing", "Journal of Management", "Journal of Accounting Research", "Journal of Accounting and Economics", "Journal of Marketing Research", "Marketing Science", "Accounting Review", "Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science", "Journal of Financial Intermediation", "Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice" are top econ journals? I assume the accounting journals cite each other but how come they don't end up lower for not getting cited by real leading econ journals? The RePEc data is open but simply too incomplete. There is a project https://opencitations.net/ would be great to get that working.
the other thing is that the ranking needs to be replicable. it is impossible to verify whether all registered researchers from a given department have indeed been taken account of...it's easy to make mistakes and impossible for outsiders to check whether everything was done correctly.
in short, forschungsmonitoring needs to publish the data on each registered researcher
Agree